It's abundantly clear that you don't. Instead you prefer to infer meaning in to and falsify quotes from other peoples writing that strengthens your own argument.
Which is not an honest way to debate.
The truth matters - even if your current president doesn't think so.
"OP posits that American alcohol started in World War II and ended afterwards, so in absence of specific dates, shall we estimate 1939 to 1945?"
Actually the time period might be both shorter and longer.
Denmark wasn't invaded until the 9th of April 1940, and the US didn't take Greenland under it's wings until some time after that.
On the other hand they probably continued doing so for quite a while after the war ended, as Danish authorities where probably fully occupied reconstructing order and societal functions in the mother country that had been under full German occupation for years.
"and one suspects probably not even that much as these were wartime rations"
The US never rationed any goods at all, apart from gas, during the Second World War. And those rations where liberal enough that ordinary citizens could still rely on the use of cars in everyday life. Not enough to make cross-country holiday trips perhaps, but enough to travel to work and such.
And those rations where still detested by Americans and dropped within 24 hours of peace in Europe - while the US was still at war with Japan for several months.
So Americans never really suffered from a rationing that effected their lives in any consequential way during the war.
If @Tzenker's assertion is correct, and the US administration of Greenland supplied alcohol in the same way as it supplied other goods, it's therefore entirely reasonable to assume they did so without any rationing what so ever - as rationing was complete anathema to Americans.
"In the history of a country that had been around for hundreds of years, those 6 years of American alcohol accounts for all the alcohol use in the future?"
It's not the numbers of years that is crucial - it's the liberal attitude towards alcohol the Americans brought with them.
As the link you contributed shows, the Danes had been deliberately working to restrict the availability of alcohol to Greenlanders for over 150 years.
As a consequence, it had probably never become an intricate part of their local culture.
It's hard for something to become that, when there isn't a steady supply of it freely available.
The fact that some Greenlanders had been able to get their hands on small amounts of alcohol doesn't change that.
But if Americans brought with them a steady supply of alcohol - and even more crucially a liberal attitude towards it's use - that would explain why Denmark in the early 1950's suddenly reversed a +150 year long policy of restricting the availability of alcohol to Greenlanders.
Other then the attitude of Greenlanders changing and they themselves demanding this liberal excess to alcohol - which @Tzenker claims as the reason for this change - it's hard to see why Danish authorities would make such a drastic reversal of their own policy?
Again - I don't know all the details here, but basic cause and effect would seem to indicate that @Tzenker is right. Otherwise one would have to find another reason to explain why Danish authorities suddenly reversed a policy that had been working so well for almost two centuries.
Alcohol, like any drug, is a poison - and it's well established in scientific literature that it's especially poisonous to indigenous peoples who neither have the gene pool nor the cultural traditions to deal with it's impact.
Once that poison was introduced into Greenland society, it was predictably only a matter of time before it was going to reek havoc in it.
"Instead, the explosion in alcohol use was in the 1980s, after Denmark had been in control for about 40 years. The link below demonstrates that. Figure 1."
Actually, the figure doesn't show that at all.
Instead it shows that from alcohol being freely available to Greenlanders in the early 1950's it from the very beginning was consumed at almost twice the rate of the people of Denmark.
Then there is a sharp drop (presumably an effect of either hastily organised information campaigns against the dangers of alcohol use and/or discouraging tragic examples of Greenlanders drinking themselves to death with this now freely available drug) until the early 1960's, down to almost the levels consumed in Denmark - and then the consumption just explodes.
The peak might have been in the 1980's - but the trend started decades earlier and consumption has always been higher then in Denmark, until the late 1990's and 2000's.
"Further, the introduction of rationing -- as you noted, in 1929 -- suggests that it was not rationed just prior to that. At some time between 1782 and 1929, we can surmise that alcohol was not rationed. Why does that period not get any blame?"
There is no basis to surmise that at all. Remember that the previously stated Danish law was that alcohol sales was completely prohibited to all Greenlanders and that only a few examples of loopholes existed.
The introduction of a rationing system might have been a relaxation of that previous law, but there is nothing to indicate there was a point in time when alcohol was freely available to Greenlanders before the US entered the story.
"Give it up, man. You just don't have a leg to stand on here."
Based on the actual evidence so far, I'm quite confident I have better standing in my argument then you do.
"American influence can be blamed for a lot of things around the world, but not this particular one."
Instead it seems you're still only out to excuse any US involvement in this story.
But since you claim to support the notion that US influence (rightly, I presume you mean?) can be blamed for a "lot of things around the world", I'll be interested in seeing how far you're willing to actual support that argument in specific cases.
So please list some cases where you believe the US can be rightly blamed for "things around the world" - just to prove you in fact are able to attribute blame to the US at all?
0
@Trineff
"I don't particularly care to parse"
It's abundantly clear that you don't. Instead you prefer to infer meaning in to and falsify quotes from other peoples writing that strengthens your own argument.
Which is not an honest way to debate.
The truth matters - even if your current president doesn't think so.
"OP posits that American alcohol started in World War II and ended afterwards, so in absence of specific dates, shall we estimate 1939 to 1945?"
Actually the time period might be both shorter and longer.
Denmark wasn't invaded until the 9th of April 1940, and the US didn't take Greenland under it's wings until some time after that.
On the other hand they probably continued doing so for quite a while after the war ended, as Danish authorities where probably fully occupied reconstructing order and societal functions in the mother country that had been under full German occupation for years.
"and one suspects probably not even that much as these were wartime rations"
The US never rationed any goods at all, apart from gas, during the Second World War. And those rations where liberal enough that ordinary citizens could still rely on the use of cars in everyday life. Not enough to make cross-country holiday trips perhaps, but enough to travel to work and such.
And those rations where still detested by Americans and dropped within 24 hours of peace in Europe - while the US was still at war with Japan for several months.
So Americans never really suffered from a rationing that effected their lives in any consequential way during the war.
If @Tzenker's assertion is correct, and the US administration of Greenland supplied alcohol in the same way as it supplied other goods, it's therefore entirely reasonable to assume they did so without any rationing what so ever - as rationing was complete anathema to Americans.
"In the history of a country that had been around for hundreds of years, those 6 years of American alcohol accounts for all the alcohol use in the future?"
It's not the numbers of years that is crucial - it's the liberal attitude towards alcohol the Americans brought with them.
As the link you contributed shows, the Danes had been deliberately working to restrict the availability of alcohol to Greenlanders for over 150 years.
As a consequence, it had probably never become an intricate part of their local culture.
It's hard for something to become that, when there isn't a steady supply of it freely available.
The fact that some Greenlanders had been able to get their hands on small amounts of alcohol doesn't change that.
But if Americans brought with them a steady supply of alcohol - and even more crucially a liberal attitude towards it's use - that would explain why Denmark in the early 1950's suddenly reversed a +150 year long policy of restricting the availability of alcohol to Greenlanders.
Other then the attitude of Greenlanders changing and they themselves demanding this liberal excess to alcohol - which @Tzenker claims as the reason for this change - it's hard to see why Danish authorities would make such a drastic reversal of their own policy?
Again - I don't know all the details here, but basic cause and effect would seem to indicate that @Tzenker is right. Otherwise one would have to find another reason to explain why Danish authorities suddenly reversed a policy that had been working so well for almost two centuries.
Alcohol, like any drug, is a poison - and it's well established in scientific literature that it's especially poisonous to indigenous peoples who neither have the gene pool nor the cultural traditions to deal with it's impact.
Once that poison was introduced into Greenland society, it was predictably only a matter of time before it was going to reek havoc in it.
"Instead, the explosion in alcohol use was in the 1980s, after Denmark had been in control for about 40 years. The link below demonstrates that. Figure 1."
Actually, the figure doesn't show that at all.
Instead it shows that from alcohol being freely available to Greenlanders in the early 1950's it from the very beginning was consumed at almost twice the rate of the people of Denmark.
Then there is a sharp drop (presumably an effect of either hastily organised information campaigns against the dangers of alcohol use and/or discouraging tragic examples of Greenlanders drinking themselves to death with this now freely available drug) until the early 1960's, down to almost the levels consumed in Denmark - and then the consumption just explodes.
The peak might have been in the 1980's - but the trend started decades earlier and consumption has always been higher then in Denmark, until the late 1990's and 2000's.
"Further, the introduction of rationing -- as you noted, in 1929 -- suggests that it was not rationed just prior to that. At some time between 1782 and 1929, we can surmise that alcohol was not rationed. Why does that period not get any blame?"
There is no basis to surmise that at all. Remember that the previously stated Danish law was that alcohol sales was completely prohibited to all Greenlanders and that only a few examples of loopholes existed.
The introduction of a rationing system might have been a relaxation of that previous law, but there is nothing to indicate there was a point in time when alcohol was freely available to Greenlanders before the US entered the story.
"Give it up, man. You just don't have a leg to stand on here."
Based on the actual evidence so far, I'm quite confident I have better standing in my argument then you do.
"American influence can be blamed for a lot of things around the world, but not this particular one."
Instead it seems you're still only out to excuse any US involvement in this story.
But since you claim to support the notion that US influence (rightly, I presume you mean?) can be blamed for a "lot of things around the world", I'll be interested in seeing how far you're willing to actual support that argument in specific cases.
So please list some cases where you believe the US can be rightly blamed for "things around the world" - just to prove you in fact are able to attribute blame to the US at all?